 The next item of business is a debate on motion number 2125, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on the environment and climate change European Union referendum. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now. I call on Roseanna Cunningham to speak and move the motion. It is now, of course, four months since the European referendum. The passage of time has not lessened our sense of dismay at the outcome, nor, so far, has it provided much clarity about the future. I want to make very clear where my priorities lie. I want to maintain this Government's commitment to our environment and our natural assets, to continue to seek the support of this Parliament for our ambitions and aims, to ensure that our environment is healthy and supports our prosperity and, above all else, to protect Scotland's position as climate change leaders. We are recognised as leaders in climate change, but we know that there is more to do, which is why setting even more ambitious targets through a new climate change bill and working hard to achieve them is at the heart of this Government's overarching priorities. Where do we seek common cause to achieve those priorities? By aligning ourselves with our European neighbours across the water. Our membership of the EU has ensured progress on a range of important issues. It has enabled us to apply high standards and vital environmental protections to the benefit of our most precious natural assets. We simply cannot afford to take our chances by jumping on to the UK Brexit bandwagon and turning our back on the EU and all that a continuing relationship offers in terms of our environmental priorities. We simply cannot trust the Tories to protect the interests of Scotland's environment. The same Tories who have, for example, cut subsidies for renewable energy projects putting at risk our low-carbon future. In one grand symbolic gesture to highlight just how lowly climate change sits in its priorities, one of Theresa May's first actions as Prime Minister was to abolish the previously clear ministerial lead on climate change altogether. Presiding Officer, I am happy to say that we can make common cause in the chamber today with both the Labour Party and the Greens. The Labour amendment highlights one key area that we must continue to focus on, our marine environment, and I thank them for raising it in that way. While I may have some issues with the wording of the Green amendment, the intent is one that this Government shares. We agree that the EU and Canada have their own highly developed legal systems and domestic courts capable of dealing with any issues arising from a trade agreement. We, too, are mindful that such international trade agreements must be carefully calibrated not only to enhance trade opportunities, especially for Scotland's produce and tourism, but not to undermine our public services or our environment. Liam McArthur, please. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention. Perhaps she could point to evidence of where in the 1,400 trade agreements that the EU has signed with those provisions in them. There is evidence of the sorts of concerns that she has highlighted there. Cabinet secretary, I know that there are concerns expressed in the Canadian trade deal, which I understand has been agreed this afternoon. The final details of that agreement I am not able to discuss because I am not aware of them as yet, since I think that the final agreement is only just taken place. The importance of that is to maintain that kind of vigilance, which I do not think is always at the forefront of people's minds. It would certainly be far easier for Scotland to influence the substance of such agreements if we had our own seat at the EU table. Nobody is going to argue with that. However, if anything, the seat-a-deal does serve to highlight our impotence by relying on a half-engaged UK Government to protect our interests rather than being able to do so for ourselves. Yet, another reason why it is vital that we ensure a continuing relationship with the EU and membership of the single market. There is a key role that the environment plays. Fundamentally, a healthy natural environment is critical to our success as a nation. It underpins our economy, our health, our landscape and our way of life. Scotland trades internationally on our reputation as a clean, green country with wholesome food and drink. We often take that natural environment for granted, but we must all remember that it is one of Scotland's most precious assets. The threat of Brexit brings those benefits into clearer focus. Although environmental arguments were not at the heart of the referendum debate, there is widespread acceptance that the EU has been a catalyst for driving up environmental standards since the UK joined in 1973. We strongly believe that membership of the European Union delivers considerable social, economic, environmental and cultural benefits for individuals, businesses and communities across Scotland. We are very much to be proud of in Scotland's environmental record. We have an excellent record of water quality. We are acknowledged to be one of the leaders in delivering comprehensive policies across the landscape to further enhance the water environment. We have built up a reputation in Europe as leaders on climate change and on the circular economy, and we fully intend to maintain that position. EU nature policy and legislation are effective, ambitious, far-reaching, robust, consistent and well-enforced. Scotland provides the major part of the UK's contribution to Natura 2000, with more than 15 per cent of our land area designated for a wealth of habitats and species. We remain a stronghold for a number of species, which are now threatened or extinct elsewhere in the EU. The Scotland's First National Marine Plan was adopted in March 2015 to provide a comprehensive and joined-up policy for protecting and enhancing our marine environment and resources. We have shown leadership in areas such as natural capital, with Scotland being the first country in the world to establish a natural capital asset indicator. The largest green space project in Europe is right here in Scotland, with a central Scotland green network receiving some 25 million visits per year. In 2015, we published Scotland's first separate air quality strategy demonstrating our determination to improve air quality in Scotland, and we are working hard to halt biodiversity loss in Scotland. Although we cannot be complacent, overall, we can be proud of our successes in seeking to protect our environment. The EU referendum result does not affect our commitment to build on those successes. It is important to recognise that we are much more aligned to the EU's position on a number of issues such as climate change than the UK Government is. What the EU referendum does is create unnecessary uncertainty and, frankly, Brexit would make it more difficult to achieve our ambitions for the environment. If we do not lose the ambition, it just gets made a lot harder to achieve. It is not by chance that we enjoy high environmental standards in the EU. We have been able to develop and maintain our high standards because the EU has created arrangements for trade between partner nations that respect and promote progress in social and environmental protection. Scotland has been and continues to be an active partner in Europe on the climate and low-carbon agenda. Scotland participates widely in EU research and development programmes, knowledge exchange and leads on delivering emissions reduction measures and pioneering low-carbon technologies. Membership of the EU enables us to help to shape the rules, regulations and standards that directly affect our ability to maintain and enhance our environment. It allows us to participate in the meetings and discussions that take place in Brussels. Many of the environmental challenges that we face do not respect national boundaries. Being part of the EU makes it easier to take the collective action that is needed to tackle those environmental challenges. Bilateral trade deals do not necessarily respect environment, climate change and sustainable development goals. Whatever the good intentions of Governments, we know that maintaining high standards is difficult without trading arrangements that allow that to happen. I believe that the best way to maintain progress on environmental quality and achieving climate change targets is within the EU. Let us not forget that that is also what the Scottish people wanted to remain in the EU. Being in the EU allows us to promote resource efficiency and make genuine moves towards sustainability. With our partners, we believe that there is potential to reform producer responsibility, to promote aspects of design that support a more circular economy, such as increased durability or recycled content. We also intend to explore how we can direct more products into higher value use beyond recycling and re-use and remanufacturing. What are a couple of the specific threats posed by Brexit? I want to first speak about climate change. Whatever form of Brexit the UK Government pursues and, let us be honest, views seem to change on a daily basis. We would no longer be part of the EU negotiating bloc on climate change. That risks our international reputation as climate change leaders and our opportunity to contribute to global climate diplomacy. We would lose access to financial support programmes and the ability to influence decisions that will continue to have an impact on Scotland. Climate change targets are challenging and the best way of achieving them is to continue with collective effort, which is vital for delivering on Paris agreement commitments. The UK's forthcoming exit from the EU is already creating uncertainty over the key building blocks to achieving targets, including emissions trading and effort sharing. With an UK exit looming, the global community is also concerned about risks to the EU's position within global climate negotiations. Neil Findlay. To the debates that I hear, to generate into project fear on steroids, I have grave concerns about some of the things that are going to happen with Brexit, but would the minister turn her mind to some opportunities that may arise from Brexit? Cabinet Secretary. I would be glad to hear from Mr Findlay what he thinks some of those opportunities are, because I know that he voted leave and therefore is in agreement with the Westminster Government. Point of order. I want to... Point of order. Thanks, Presiding Officer. For the record, I voted remain. Oh, well, it wasn't a point of order, but it's now on the record. You have an opportunity to speak later, Mr Findlay. I'm glad to be corrected, Presiding Officer, and I do want to move on now to one of the other specific issues that I wanted to raise, which was the question around the research institutes. My portfolio directly supports a number of world-leading research institutes in Scotland. They provide cutting-edge advances in agriculture, food and environmental research that have helped to boost the performance of our rural economy and enhance our environment. Their research also helps to inform policy decisions both here in Scotland and in the EU. Indeed, the EU is also a major funder of those institutes, accounting for around £6 million in funding every single year. The funding uncertainty is now considerable, but the uncertainty is about more than just funding. EU nationals make up around one in six employees of the research institutes, and their skills and experience are integral to their success. It is an absolute disgrace that the UK Government has not guaranteed the position of other EU citizens in our country. By not doing so, it directly damaged the research future of Scotland. I plan to meet EU nationals from the research institutes next month and will reiterate that the 181,000 non-British EU nationals who have chosen to make their home here continue to be welcome. What are the next steps? The Scottish Government is actively engaged in discussions to protect our natural environment and progress action to tackle climate change. In July, I convened a stakeholder event where we explored the potential implications—all the potential implications—I hope that Mr Findlay is listening to that—of leaving the EU on Scotland's environment. That was an opportunity to promote collaborative working and to share experiences and concerns on those difficult challenges. I welcome the establishment of the environment and climate change round table chaired by Professor Dame Ann Glover. The panel draws on different areas of expertise in academic and environmental organisations to advise the Scottish Government Standing Council on Europe. Those actions, along with the establishment of the Standing Council on Europe itself, demonstrate how serious we are about exploring all options to protect Scotland's interests. Given how much we will be affected by leaving the EU, it is essential that Scotland has meaningful discussions with the UK Government in developing the UK position for the negotiations ahead. In conclusion, the environment has been a key competence of the EU for good reason. Progress in environmental and social goals have developed hand in hand with a single trading market. A level playing field allows higher standards for all. We have also been able to work together to tackle global problems, including climate change. However, if we end up in a hard Brexit, our ambitions for Scotland's environment will remain high. We continue to be committed to maintaining, protecting and enhancing our environment. It is crucial that the environment and climate change are part of the consideration of future trade arrangements. The Scottish Government will maintain efforts to secure Scotland's place in the EU, not least to protect our environment, but we will continue to seek to protect that environment, regardless of what the outcomes may be. I now call Maurice Golden to speak to and move amendment 2125.1. Mr Golden, you have nine minutes and perhaps a little more. I move amendment 2125 to the motion in my name. I must say that I am disappointed that the SNP Government wishes to constantly debate portfolio X in relation to Brexit rather than focus on maximising the powers that have been devolved and are fully in the competence of this Parliament. The argument that every problem facing Scotland is the fault of the UK Government is as weak as it is simplistic. I would hope to get beyond 35 seconds, but I am quite happy to do so if you would mind. The member will be aware that marine fuels M30, M40 and M60 are all permitted to carry sulphur up to a level of 3 per cent. That is nearly two and a half per cent more than any other kind of fuel. That is one of the most polluting ways of generating energy. Does the Scottish Parliament have power to change that? Mr Golden will fully cover all those points in the course of the next eight and a half minutes. That overall is the politics of grievance. The irony is that, like a spoiled child, the more powers that have been given to the Scottish Parliament, the louder the moaning and whinging gets from the SNP Government. I am not accusing the Scottish Government of being a one-trick pony and blaming the UK Government for every single Scottish Government failing. Since June 24, it now has a new trick of blaming Brexit as well. I believe that Brexit will happen, that Brexit means Brexit and that the UK Government will deliver the best package for everyone in the United Kingdom. If you believe the Government motion, you would think that the EU should take credit for every environmental or climate change target that is delivered in Scotland. Clearly, this is not the case and, in fact, does the Scottish Government a disservice? In fact, the cabinet secretary said earlier this week in relation to EU directives that any responsible Government would be choosing to do those things and that EU directives were simply a starting point. I agree. Why does the motion go against that? Of course, the EU has had a part to play, but so have the United Nations, many international NGOs, as well as major international treaties such as the Kyoto protocol and, most recently, the Paris agreement. It should be recognised that much of this portfolio already lies within the competence of the Scottish Government and that, on occasion, it cannot blame its failings on Westminster or Brexit and, going forward, it is simply not acceptable for the Scottish Government to use Brexit as a smokescreen to hide behind in relation to its performance in this area. Of course, maybe the problem is that the Scottish Government does not trust itself to look after the environment without intervention from the European Union. I echo the sentiments of the Scottish Wildlife Trust, RSPB Scotland, the National Trust for Scotland, the Woodland Trust and the Marine Conservation Society, that the Scottish Government should not use Brexit as an opportunity to deregulate and weaken environmental targets and legislation. Ross Greer, on the note of trust, how much trust should be placed in a UK Government who are supposedly committed to tackling climate change but who have recently abolished the Department for Tackling Climate Change? As the member will be aware, I do not speak for the UK Government, but what I can say is that the UK Government has had a wonderful role in subsidising the amount of renewable energy that has allowed the Scottish Government to achieve the targets. I would expect some congratulations on that point. No problem. I am still getting used to everyone's names, Deputy Presiding Officer, but I will... As I am, but do not use first names. Instead, post Brexit, we should work proactively to maintain and strengthen current legislation where appropriate and explore the opportunities to change EU legislation that is not in Scotland's interests. Why are the SNP hiding behind Brexit? Let's look at their record. The recent biodiversity 2020 progress report shows that work is slipping and that targets are being missed. In peatland restoration, since 2013, 10,000 hectares of peatland have been restored. However, we should be restoring 21,000 hectares. That is a failure. 3,000 to 5,000 hectares of new native woodland should be created per year. That target has not been met last year with just 2,314 hectares of native woodland created—another failure. We need to restore approximately 10,000 hectares of native woodland into satisfactory conditions—not at this moment in time, I am just doing a list of failures at the moment. Thereafter, I will take an intervention, Mr Russell. Please sit down, Mr Russell. Please sit down. In partnership with private woodland owners through deer management plans, no actual achievements for this target are listed—another failure. In safeguarding Scotland's resources, there is a commitment to the promotion of sustainable design of products. Where is this? Another failure. The recycling rate target of 50 per cent for 2013 is still not wet, with Scotland the worst performer in Britain. Another failure. I could go on and on, but I will take an intervention at this time from Mr Russell. Mr Russell. I just wondered if the member would tell us whether the UK Government for England had in actual fact met those targets. For example, on woodland creation, its failure is even greater. Mr Golden. I refer members to my earlier answer that I am not a spokesperson for the UK Government. This is the Scottish Parliament with devolved power to deal with Scotland. With Brexit, we must take the opportunities that exist and maximise them. For example, we have the opportunity to take back control of our seas and exert control of our 200-mile economic exclusive zone, as prescribed in the United Nations law of the sea convention. We can establish a more effective fisheries management system in our waters that delivers for Scotland's fishing industry as well as provides environmental sustainable solutions. We only need to have a look across the North Sea to see how non-EU countries are meeting the challenges of climate change and environmental protection. The Norwegians have already made great strides with their 100,000 electric vehicle registered earlier this year, and one in three cars now sold in Norway is electric. A situation brought about by the Norwegian Government working hard for a tax breaks, as well as significant investment in the underlying infrastructure. Norway did not need— Excuse me a minute, but can I ask the front bench if they want to make comments to intervene not from a sedentary position? Yes. Thank you, Deputy Secretary. That also goes for back benchers, Mr Scott. Norway did not need the EU to establish this goal for them. They did that themselves. The SNP often liked to cite Norway as a model for Scotland to look up to. Here I agree with them. The Scottish Government can seize the opportunity Brexit gives us to go above and beyond when it comes to the environment. I call on the Scottish Government to focus on the day job and set aside their obsession with the divisive second independence referendum. Set aside the blame game and stop the naval gazing, the inverse counterfactual history, the quantum reality postulation and focus on the job at hand of protecting and enhancing Scotland's environment. Thank you very much, Mr Golden. I now call on David Stewart to speak to and move amendment 2125.2. Mr Stewart, please. I'm going to give you an extra minute, so you can get an extra minute. It's eight minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Environment is an international issue, and whether you're choking in the smog of Los Angeles or watching acid rain fall in eastern Siberia, climate change recognises no boundaries. One of the great successes of the EU has been the comprehensive suite of laws, directives and treaties that have developed, sustained and protected the environment. The EU is perhaps not the world's environmental watchdog, but nevertheless a champion and a leader to make the scale of large global emission cuts needed to begin tackling climate change. Presiding Officer, it's very easy to forget that, in the 1970s and 1980s, the UK was known as the dirty man of Europe. We had the highest sulphur dioxide emissions from power stations, causing acid rain across northern Europe. Ross sewage was routinely dumped into the sea in 1976, for example. Only 27 beaches across the UK were deemed clean enough to swim in. The EU has helped to modernise the UK's environmental policy since we joined in 1973. Through the EU this year, Scotland sent farewell to its last coal-fired power station. Through the EU, the precautionary principle means that the most harmful pesticides were banned from use in crops most visited by bees, and I should declare my interest as the species champion of the great yellow bumblebee. European rules have meant that thousands of dangerous chemicals have been removed from everyday products such as lead from paint. The can proposals contained in the revised waste framework directive have the potential to be transformational for Scotland, if adopted in relation to litter. However, I stress that the relationship between the EU and the UK has not been one way. The UK has helped to shape EU thinking across a number of areas, including wildlife protection and climate change. For example, Europe's water framework directive led to cleaner Scottish water. Europe's landfill directives led to improved Scottish recycling rates. Europe's environmental assessment directives led to improved Scottish air quality. Air quality is a key aspect that affects people of course throughout the world. Currently, Scotland is influenced by binding EU legislation, which is direct implication on our health. The EU air quality directive target was missed by both Scotland and the UK as a whole, which led to the Cleaner Air for Scotland programme being introduced. However, that only came into being through the EU law being able to be used as a stick over the UK Government, keeping them accountable, pushing them to improve standards. Although the legal limits for nitrogen dioxide are still being broken in several parts of Scotland, it is obviously incredibly important that, once we leave the EU, not just because Scotland and the EU would have the ability to approve the legislation, does it not mean that it should? Not only should Scotland have the desire to stay in the EU, therefore it is an incentive to keep it within the current EU expectations and standards, but it is also an incentive to help to improve the health of our population. What are the consequences of Brexit for the environment and climate change? Well, even the famous 17th century hanam mystic, the brand sear, who allegedly predicted the outbreak of World War 2 in 1939, would be stumped. Would it be hard or soft Brexit? Will MPs and indeed MSPs have a voice prior to article 50 of the Lisbon treaty being evoked? What of the Great Repeal Act is defeated and what concessions will the remaining 27 member states want to have in exchange for a continued trading relationship with the UK? Let me give you an example. I attended a conference recently in Edinburgh, the EDS conference, and one of the key speakers that day argued that Spain would demand access to Scottish fishing rights as part of the negotiations. Any suggestions continue to have access to the single market with the UK would, of course, need to meet the tests of the EU holy grail, which are the four freedoms, including the freedom of movement. However, there is also a world of difference between being part of the single market and having access to the single market. What would a soft Brexit for the environment and climate change mean? One possibility is to negotiate membership with the European economic area, such as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. The EEA, as Members will know, are the 28 EU member states and the three EFTA states. However, if I could quote the EFTA fact sheet, I quote, it is therefore impossible to be part of the EEA agreement without being a member of the EU or EFTA. The UK, of course, would have to implement EU product standards to access the single market, which would have no role in shaping future EU environmental policy. The real threat sign from Brexit is that Europe's checks and balances may go. Who will enforce Brussels directives post Brexit? Who will be in charge of infraction procedures? My colleague Neil Findlay will talk in much more detail about the effect of the future trade deals may have on the environment and climate change. However, as global justice now explains in the briefing, I quote, the EU-US trade deal, known as TTIP and its Canadian equivalent, are among the biggest threats to democratic decision making in Europe of our time. The EU cannot go back to the sewage ridden beaches and environmental destruction of decades past. It is of vital importance that any Brexit deal must involve the UK agreeing to fully maintain EU standards on areas such as biodiversity, water and air quality. The investor state dispute settlement system creates tribunals on which foreign investors can sue Governments that interfere with their profit bottom line. They are part of SETA and likely part of TTIP as well. Let me give you an example, Presiding Officer. The Swedish industry firm Vatterfall used the ISDS mechanism to demand 1 billion euros from Germany after the state government of Hamburg introduced stricter regulations on the firm's coalfired power station. That led to a change of government policy, a court settlement from Germany and a major setback for the environment and climate change. The debate this afternoon is much, much more than Brexit alone. It's about what's Scotland we want in the future, a Scotland that is clean, green and sustainable, a Scotland recognised across the globe for the quality of its natural environment, its stunning hills, glens and lochs and its talented multi-cultural workforce and warmth that is welcome to tourists. From our history, Scots have been leaders. James Watt, the godfather of the industrial revolution, Robert Watson Watt, the inventor of radar, will mean a Fleming, the earliest astronomy pioneer. Today, we are leaders in climate change and environment. As the great environmental activist Wellan Benny said, the world is not given by his fathers but borrowed from his children. I ammuse the amendment in my name. Thank you very much. Mr Stewart now calls Mark Ruskell to speak to move amendment 2125.3. Up to eight minutes, please, Mr Ruskell. Okay, thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I welcome this debate here in this chamber this afternoon? Now, as we've already heard, we live in a Europe where air pollution knows no borders, where fish swim across international waters, where our shared values and actions to protect our commons and our nature are enshrined in European laws and treaties. The days when the UK was known as the dirty man of Europe are over because EU regulations on the environment dragged us into the modern world. David Stewart has already said that we no longer send boats out to dump raw sewage off the east coast. That would be unimaginable today. We no longer treat precious plastic and steel simply as rubbish to be buried in stinking pits in the ground. We gave the White-tailed Eagle, the Wildcat and the Minky Whale the status and protection that they deserve under progressive EU laws. I should also state a declaration of interest as a champion for the White-tailed Eagle. I will openly confess here in this chamber that I wept in front of my family on Friday morning after the Brexit vote was announced. For me, as a green, it represented 40 years of environmental and social progress that we want as a European movement cast aside and the hope of a further 40 years of progress and reform for my children's generation put into grave danger. I visit the same day to the Royal Highland show and didn't improve my mood. As institution after institution I spoke to shared their pain. Collaborative projects cancelled that very morning as confidence from their European partners drained away. Now we're seeing that the cost to Scotland's environment is stacking up. The EU life programme, for example, has provided £42 million in match funding to support peatland restoration over the last 20 years. Where will that support come from now? Right at the time when we need healthy peatlands more than ever, both for their conservation value and their vast carbon sinks. A proposed £11 million EU life project from RSPB and plant life to eradicate invasive rhododendron has now been withdrawn. Preventative spend, what the Christie commission urged us to be investing in. If we don't invest in this, it will cost the environment and the public purse for generations to come. So what will we be left with post-Brexit? If we end up with a soft Brexit and we remain part of the European free trade area, then at least some of our common EU standards will remain. However, directives from birds to habitats to bathing water quality to the common agricultural and fisheries policies will no longer apply. I welcome the cabinet secretary's repeated commitment—I have heard her mention this on many occasions—that she has committed to upholding EU laws and directives. However, those are early days and times change. Ministers, even Governments change. Already, lobby groups are seeing the opportunity to weaken what they see as red tape in a CAP and CFP free zone. That is why it is more important than ever that we refocus efforts on respecting scientific advice and adopting an ecosystem's approach to regenerate our seas and our fish stocks. It is also why we need to revisit the defining principles of our agriculture policy, possibly for the first time since that pivotal 1947 post-war agriculture act, at a time when we lived in a nation desperately hungry. The Scottish Government has the chance to put in place a progressive agricultural vision that can be reflected across the EU, including prioritising organic production, smarter use of fertiliser and raising livestock health. It will find support from across Europe, particularly from the French, who now have placed agroecology at the heart of their national agriculture policy. The good food nation bill should start by recognising that food overproduction has destroyed biodiversity, has effectively stripped our soils in some areas and is driving land use into becoming an even bigger emitter of carbon than the entire energy generation sector. I think that has been a stand-out point that has come out of our evidence and environment committee already in the few weeks that we have met. The evidence and UK climate change committee is showing that we have a crisis in our agriculture, not just in terms of carbon emissions but in terms of adaptation as well. The need for agricultural reform is clear, but we must move forward together in raising the playing field of standards across the EU, shifting subsidies away from blunt support for overproduction to those that can deliver real benefits for taxpayers, from flood protection to species reintroduction to clean soil, air and water. On the moral imperative that is climate change, our targets in Scotland have been set in the context of a Europe that is driving hard progress on carbon and energy. A weaker set of UK climate targets agreed with the UN would take the pressure off the UK. With the Westminster Government mad keen on nuclear and fracking, it is likely that energy market rules established in the wake of Brexit will stifle Scotland's renewable ambitions rather than realising them. It is incredible to hear Maurice Golden talk about the subsidy regime. The subsidy regime that you have cut your Government is no longer supporting renewables in Scotland and people are losing jobs as a result. We have seen how you have butchered that renewable subsidy scheme. It is switching off the investment pipeline for onshore wind and other technologies in Scotland, just as the cost gap with conventional generation was starting to narrow. The news that the UK this week has dropped to the 14th most attractive place for renewables investment in the world behind Morocco is a disgrace given the richness of our renewable resources and innovation expertise. The signs are not good when we still await Westminster's action plan to deliver the UK's climate targets with no clear timescale on the horizon. A post-Brexit bonfire of environmental regulations, investment, research and subsidies from Westminster will only drive bad consequentials for budgets in Scotland and put our own green ambitions firmly back in the box. The hard Brexit scenario offers an even more terrifying prospect of a race to the bottom in environmental and social standards, driven by neoliberal trade deals that undermine the democratic will of citizens across the world. CETA and TTIP are not benign trade agreements that helpfully reduce tariffs and quotas. They allow public policy on everything from climate change to food standards to be challenged by corporations. The right to trade trumps everything and states that standing the way can be sued through closed corporate courts. As Alan Smith has said, we don't live in an economy, we live in a society and these trade agreements have the potential to pull our public services and hard-fought environmental protections apart. That's why the Green amendment reflects three key red lines around democratic accountability and protection for public services and the environment. We've heard of examples for the benefit of Liam McArthur in Quebec, where corporations have sued Governments as a result of fracking bans. It's unthinkable that this could happen here in Scotland. Algy Clough would just need to open up an office in Vancouver to sue the Scottish Government. He wouldn't even require to have an office here. It's clear that, collectively, that states and devolved parliaments across Europe have taken their eye off the ball with CETA. Scrutiny at Westminster has been non-existent and devolved administrations are coming later this debate. Wellonia stuck its neck out and was largely isolated— The members in these last seconds spoke for millions of citizens across Europe who have petitioned and campaigned against TTIP and CETA. There's a strong democratic heart beating louder than ever in Europe. Now is the time for Scotland to step up, join that beat for reform, and create a fair Europe that protects and builds on the environmental and social progress that we have delivered together, leaving a world fit for future generations. That's why I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much. I now call on Liam McArthur to speak to a move amendment 2125.4. Up to eight minutes, please, Ms McArthur. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is my first opportunity to participate in the now weekly debates on the consequences of Brexit, so let me be clear from the outset. I absolutely share the dismay that is felt by many at the mess. The Tories have landed the country in through an abject failure to manage divisions within their party. I believe that the vote by the UK to leave the EU was a backward, self-defeating step of historic proportions, not in the UK's interests, not in Scotland's interests and not in the interests of the Orkney community that I represent. My constituents voted heavily in favour of remaining part of the EU back in June. They recognise that the EU membership is profoundly in their interests for a whole host of reasons. I will do all my power to safeguard those interests in the months ahead. However, Orkney voted even more overwhelmingly in favour of remaining part of the UK back in 2014. I simply do not accept that layering the additional uncertainty of a second independence referendum on top of what we already face with Brexit is compatible with representing or safeguarding the interests of those that I was elected to serve. There will be colleagues in the chamber—I will not name them—who can chart a more long-standing commitment to European integration and the principles underlying it. For me, it is at the heart of why I am a Liberal Democrat. A passionate belief in empowering individuals and communities to fulfil their potential only works if one accepts at the same time the necessity of collective action and collaboration to tackle problems but also sees opportunities that transcend nations. An obvious example of that is the subject under discussion this afternoon in terms of climate change and, more broadly, the protection of the environment. The Government's motion is absolutely right to point to the pivotal role that the EU has played in developing the environmental agenda, raising standards in air and water quality, cutting emissions, reducing waste and a whole host of other areas. In part, it has achieved that through securing concerted collective action, lifting in some ways the threat that steps taken by one member state would leave it at a competitive disadvantage compared to others. It has also succeeded in bringing those issues into the mainstream of political debate across the continent and further afield. Domestically, it is estimated that around 80 per cent of our environmental legislation originates at an EU level. Taking just one example, Scotland's renewables claimed in 2013 that EU directives and their implementation by the UK and Scottish Governments were responsible for delivering much of the progress that has been seen in the sector to that point, other than that Mark Ruskell made some fairly sensible observations of what has happened over the past couple of years. At the same time, that did not stop Scottish ministers from setting renewables targets for 2020 that were more challenging than the UK or the EU. In truth, there is nothing stopping the cabinet secretary from taking a bolder, more ambitious path on the environment, whether inside or outside the EU. The RSPB and others make that very point in their briefings, along with the case for securing sustainable land and sea management, and future funding for environmental initiatives that others have mentioned. The current uncertainty over Brexit and the platitudinous mantra of Brexit means Brexit are wholly unhelpful, but it is not a justification for the Scottish Government to throw its hands in the air and say that nothing can be done, or indeed for this Parliament to renege on our responsibility to hold ministers to account on the environment. The WWF has set out a range of areas where it believes that this canon must be done, and heat and transport referred to in my amendment are prime examples. While excellent progress has been made in reducing emissions from electricity, the same cannot be said of heat responsible for over half of our greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, renewables accounts for only 4 per cent of Scotland's heat. The WWF argues that, by 2030, that will need to improve 10-fold if we begin to meet our climate change targets. On transport 2, the situation appears a little better. Emissions have fallen by less than 1 per cent since 1990. Again, WWF highlights ways in which that might be improved. What is not suggested is that the Scottish Government should give a £250 million tax break to the airline industry through changes to air passenger duty, which will pump 60,000 tonnes of carbon into Scotland's air every year. Also absent from any to-do list on decarbonising transport is flag-waving Scottish Government support for Heathrow expansion, a decision set for years of legal dispute over breaches to EU and UK laws on air quality and noise, and one that flies an air bus 380 through the SNP's commitment to climate change and reducing environmentally damaging short-haul flights. Doubtless Heathrow lobbyists will be congratulating themselves on money well spent at the recent SNP conference. Before closing, let me touch briefly on the final element of my amendment and the Government's motion. As discussions continue over precisely what Brexit will actually mean in practice, Scottish voices absolutely must be heard and interests protected. In the area of climate change and the environment, this is not simply in Scotland or indeed the UK's interests but, as I think David Stewart made the point, also in the EU's interests as well. The breadth and the depth of our expertise is truly world-class. I cite the example of Herriot-Watt, only to illustrate what is to be found across our colleges, our universities, research institutes, as well as the private, public and voluntary sectors in this country. I will not undermine Herriot-Watt's achievements in trying to describe in detail its work on surface active agents under the Marysurf project. Suffice to say, the collaborative venture under the Horizon 2020 programme amply demonstrates how Scottish research is highly regarded and directly relevant to addressing the environmental challenges many of our industries face and industries across the continent and further afield. Although the initiative has been made needlessly and recklessly more difficult by Brexit, it is hard to understand how SNP ministers felt that a vote for Scotland to leave the UK would have absolutely no impact on the allocation of research funding or on collaboration but that Brexit presents an existential threat. Whatever the future holds, I hope that Scottish and UK Governments and indeed the EU will continue to recognise and invest in the world-class research innovation and skills to be found here in Scotland. The tragedy of June's vote takes many forms, Deputy Presiding Officer. Making collaborative action on the environment and climate change less straightforward is certainly one of them. However, with a climate change bill, a warm homes bill and an energy strategy in the pipeline, this Parliament will have opportunities in the months ahead to show leadership on the environment if it so chooses and I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much, Mr MacArthur. We now move into the open debate. Can I remind all members who wish to take part to ensure that the request-to-speak buttons are on and perhaps some members do not realise that if they make an intervention, their request-to-speak buttons are switched off, so just look and make sure that you still have your button on if you've taken an intervention. I don't know what I'm saying. Yes, if you've made an intervention, that's what I mean. I call Kate Forbes, followed by Alexander Burnett. Ms Forbes, please, six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As the MSP for what I like to say is one of the most environmentally important constituencies in Scotland, I'm glad to be able to speak in favour of the Government's motion today. We mustn't forget that it has been a good start to this parliamentary term with the news that we as a nation have met our annual targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The collective effort of the many organisations, individuals and the Scottish Government is to be commended for the progress in mitigating climate change. Challenges do, of course, remain, not least, the vote to leave the EU. In the face of Brexit-related confusion and uncertainty, I, for one, am delighted that the cabinet secretary has given assurances that we will continue to champion policies that protect the environment. We need to be ambitious and aim high with innovative and transformative policies that crucially don't just impose themselves on stakeholders but are inherently part of society's daily life. We are all stakeholders in that—fishermen, farmers, office workers, children, parents, commuters—we make choices and we need to make the right ones. However, those choices needn't be onerous or inconvenient because there are many benefits to our economy, our health, our culture and our education that derive from mitigating climate change and managing our natural resources well. I would like to direct much of my focus today on natural capital. That being the benefits, be they social or economic, that we can derive from Scotland's natural assets. The cabinet secretary has already identified that we are a global leader having launched the natural capital asset index, the first country in the world to publish such a detailed document to monitor annual changes in our natural capital. We are fortunate to live in a country rich with natural assets, fertile land, diverse animal species and natural energy capabilities. We rely on our natural resources to provide the very basic goods and services that are vital to economic activity and to society's wellbeing. Just as with financial capital, if too much is spent, debts are accrued and bankruptcy can ensue, so also with natural capital. As the Scottish wildlife trust summed it up, if we keep drawing down stocks of natural capital without allowing nature to recover, we run the risk of local, regional or even global ecosystem collapse. Avoiding that risk takes cross-border efforts, and the EU has played an important role over the past three decades in supporting and protecting our precious resources. Environmental challenges such as air pollution do not respect borders, and I hope that we will continue to see a combating of climate change and protecting natural resources that happens on an internationally collaborative basis. There are some fantastic projects in my constituency that have derived from the natural capital of our country, which have created jobs, which have boosted our tourism industry and which have benefited our food and drink sector. A few examples. The Wilderness Scotland tour in Avymor and the Nevis mountain experience in Fort William both make use of the stunning scenery and biodiversity and have each been awarded gold certifications from green tourism. And in Sky, the second most visited place in Scotland, Ferry Glen has used its status as a geological wonder to promote tourism and strengthen the island's position as a must-visit location for tourists visiting Scotland from across the globe. Likewise, my constituency has also benefited from a number of EU wildlife regulations. The Murray Firth is home to a large group of bottlenose dolphins, a mammal-classed as a European protected species. The Habitat Regulations of 1994 has ensured that these beautiful creatures can continue to cultivate their natural environment without interference from pollutants and other industrial waste, and long may that continue. To effectively manage our natural capital, we have to take the requisite action in order not to run up our ecological, social and economic liability. The EU has been the primary legislator in environmental matters. With the UK Government thus far showing an unwillingness to continue that work, it is more important than ever that Scotland leads away with ambition and conviction. However, we must do it in an effort to engage all stakeholders in that process and to make combating climate change an inherent part of society's daily life. I call Alexander Burnett to be followed by Graeme Dey, Mr Burnett, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Before I begin, I would like to draw attention to my register of interests in forestry, biomass and timber construction. It is important to make the SNP aware that voting remain is not the same as wanting independence. I know that, for most of us, that would seem obvious, but I fear that some of the SNP benches have not yet understood that. What is more obvious is that we are leaving the European Union and we are going to make a success of it. Unfortunately, we are all too aware of what the SNP wants to achieve today. Do you agree that, in the independence referendum campaign, the better together cohorts campaigned on securing Scotland's place in the European Union? That is why I think that a great deal of people voted to know that, so you cannot really make that assumption. Mr Burnett. I think that most people who voted in the referendum understood that, in the Scottish referendum, they understood when they did so that there was the distinct very strong possibility that there would be the EU referendum coming up. They made that choice in the complete knowledge that a referendum would happen. I think that all of them believed in the democratic process, and I would hope that everyone in Scotland would continue to believe in the democratic process. However, returning to the debate, the SNP will look to blame their failures on the environment before Brexit for the reasons that they are failing the environment after Brexit. From missing targets to targets with our end dates, the Scottish Government is failing our forestry sector. I can only imagine the SNP briefing for today's debate, reading like a broken record, Tory's bad Brexit worse, but the facts simply don't add up for them in this sector. Forestry is one of our strongest areas from timber production for paper, biomass or construction. Wood is the most environmental product that we have, and we should have it in abundance in Scotland. By leaving the European Union, Holyrood will get the powers over directives that affect our environment, and the powers covering the forestry strategy will come to Holyrood. A strategy that, unfortunately, is riddled with shortcomings and will now give us an opportunity to create a bespoke Scottish model. Mr Stevenson, can you identify a specific piece of power that we would expect to get? I think that we will get more control over what we should be able to do in terms of planting, which I will come to in a second. The powers covering the forestry strategy are going to come to Holyrood. Our Scottish Conservative MP, Mr Dr Ian Duncan, has held a consultation which asks Scottish stakeholders how EU environment legislation could be amended or altered for the benefit of Scotland. Those stakeholders included wildlife charities, Government agencies and private sector companies. The conclusion was that EU legislation was becoming cumbersome and confusing. One of the main problems with those directives is that they have to take into account the needs of 28 other nations. In forestry terms, 28 nations means finding a single solution to fit all forests from the mountain birch trees in a bisco in the artych circle to the stone pine forests of Dinanad national park just north of Africa. For a party that wants independence, I find it strange that the SNP would be willing to give this legislation back to Brussels instead of wanting to decide it here in this chamber. However, perhaps we know the real reason why the SNP does not want future forestry powers discussed here, because a quick look at its track record on planting reveals that not once in the last six years has this SNP Government hit its own target of 10,000 hectares. Without planting our basic needs, let alone the areas that are required to hit our climate change targets, this is a sector continually let down by the SNP Government. Planting figures was one of the main discussion points that I had when recently meeting with Confor, the industry body. It recognised the need to establish a fully devolved arrangement that can work to make a success of Scottish forestry. It has pushed for a well-resourced effective forest and management service that could work with the private sector for the benefit of Scotland. In fact, Confor seemed to have been putting more thought into how we can make a successor Brexit for forestry than the Scottish Government has. It has outlined five key aspects that will need to be fixed in order to create a thriving forestry in timber sector. I would encourage the cabinet secretary to take these and many other stakeholders' suggestions on board. Confor stated that Brexit offers a unique opportunity to integrate forestry and timber production as a major driver of the rural economy. Should the Scottish Government not get behind the ideas of the industry instead of perusing political point scoring, it should have been clearer from the outset that the First Minister and her colleagues have never had any intention of delivering on Brexit opportunities. Not one member of Nicola Sturgeon's expert panel has been involved in the forestry sector. That is simply not good enough when you consider that nearly 20 per cent of Scotland is covered by forest and it is in industry worth £1 billion and employing over 25,000 people. To conclude, we have a Government hell bent on a single policy and they are willing to use any legislation to promote their ultimate goal. It is now more important than ever for the SNP to quit their grievance politics and get behind the opportunities that Brexit will bring in our forestry sector. After years of drip-drip undermining and misreporting of the EU by sections of our print media, was it altogether surprising that so many in the UK fell for the claims of Brexit advocates over aspects of EU-inspired law? Brussels bureaucrats imposing their will on the Brits demanding bananas and cucumbers not be overly curved, firemen no longer allowed to slide down poles, pale oil to no longer be called pale oil and all that nonsense. So great in scale and variety, there is actually a website dedicated to debunking the myths. When it comes to shaping of the law around the environment, however, EU membership has undeniably to an extent that even the right-wing media would struggle to make a case against being a force for good. Brexit does raise very obvious and significant concerns going forward in an area covered by more than 650 individual pieces of legislation. Concerns that are being highlighted not just by our environmentalists but academics and indeed in our sister Parliament in Northern Ireland. The Scottish Government has been clear in its commitment to maintaining high environmental standards wherever the future holds, but there are potential implications for and possible threats to that moving forward. There is an overarching principle around all of this area, which is that right now we have the EU there to keep Governments honest, to hold them to account around environmental commitments. The mechanisms that we have in place enable action to be taken to ensure obligations are met. The mere fact that they exist are by and large enough to secure compliance. Against the backdrop of taking back control, what would the future hold for Scotland within the UK but outwith the EU? Given evidence to the UK Environmental Orch Committee, stakeholders were of the view that the EU has provided a necessary enforcement mechanism that has incentivised the UK Government to take action that it may otherwise not have, that it cited the air quality directive as an example. It expressed to fear that, and I quote, if the UK were free to set its own environmental standards, it would set them at a less stringent level than has been imposed by the EU. You can understand why those concerns exist. The deregulatory tone of the UK Government's rhetoric and even more so that of the leave campaign could easily be seen as a sign that the flexibility that Brexit would offer is more likely to be used to reduce environmental protections when they conflict with other goals than to strengthen them. Outside of the EU, as Dave Stewart asked, who will ensure compliance? Will the laws survive in their existing form to be complied with if powerful voices within the UK marine and particularly land sectors, for example, demand a slashing of red tape and approaches that favour their short-term interests? What of the risk of reverse devolution, at least in relation to any cross-border areas, as some academics have flagged up? Might we conceivably have a UK Government appointing itself to oversee environmental compliance and consistency of approach across the islands and its devolved administrations? That would be a concerning prospect. When one could certainly imagine that situation where powerful lobbying forces were, where Scotland's environmental standards were higher than those over the border, demand to be able to compete on a level playing field. We may already be seeing signs of that emerging. The Scottish land and estates paper on the possible post-Brexit relationships between Scotland, Wales and the UK around food farming and the environment gets only as far as its second paragraph before ascertaining. Again, I quote, crucially, we suggest that there is a need for a level of consistency across the UK so that farmers, landowners and rural businesses are not disadvantaged by geography. In the interest of fairness, I would acknowledge that the paper does make a number of reasonable and considered points. However, there was one other comment that jumped out at me and worked my way through it. That was the demand that again, quote, policy development must involve consultation with landowners and farmers at every stage end quote, not the lack of reference to environmentalists. Of course, that is an organisation that represents farmers and landowners, but the absence of acknowledgement that environmentalists would rightly also need to be involved. I do hope that that is no more than an oversight. There are many not insignificant environmental regulation questions that arise from Brexit. One is the ETS, which is administered at the EU level, and does not simply transfer into UK law. The UK could negotiate continuing involvement of some kind in the scheme, but, being realistic, just how accommodating will the EU want to be when being so might offer encouragement to other member states, perhaps entertaining thoughts of splintering off. Even if it could remain involved in ETS as some sort of associate member, how would UK interests be fully protected amongst the rightful drive to tighten the cap if it could not vote in any legislative changes to the EU ETS? If that is a non-starter, will we have to set up a replacement national trading scheme? How might that work in practice? The politics around environmental legislation going forward could be huge, but setting the politics to one side, any considered view of the impact of Brexit, suggests that it has the potential to be significant for our environment. Professor Colin Reade of the University of Dundee identifies in his paper challenges for environmental law. I will refer to his conclusions. He says, for environmental law overall, the most significant changes are likely to be not so much in the detail of any legislation, but the new vulnerability of environmental rules to short-term political pressures and the removal of the means by which the Government can be called to account. Whatever its flaws, the EU has provided a stable framework of environmental law, and that means to ensure that Governments and others live up to their obligations. The post-Brexit world will be more volatile. We do not know what the coming years will bring in terms of the details and timing of the UK's withdrawal, the nature of future relationships with the EU and others, or the extent to which existing laws based on EU measures will survive unchanged. The one certainty is uncertainty. So many questions, so few obvious answers, highlighting the absolute need for Scotland to be able to safeguard and indeed build upon the environmental progress that we have made. However, that might be achieved. The debate is timely, and it is important that it speaks to the broader question of how we in this Parliament and at the UK Parliament handle our departure from the European Union, because in my view it will happen whether we like it or not. If it does not happen, I believe that there is the real potential for an ugly social, political and democratic crisis. In a recent Guardian article, George Monbue summed up the possible consequences of such a scenario. He said, were this vote to be annulled, the result would be a full-scale class and cultural war, pitching middle-class progressives against those on whose behalf they have claimed to speak, and permanently alienating people who have spent their lives feeling voiceless and powerless. I think that the stakes are that high, and tragically I fear that he might be right, and I shall come to that later. However, first of all, there is much in the Government's motion that I agree with, but there are other assumptions that I believe are in need of challenge. I recognise the benefits that being part of the EU has brought to our environment, our drinking water beaches, the treatment of wastewater, air quality, climate change targets and the protection of wildlife. I have all seen positive action as a consequence of joint working across the nations of the European Union. Through legislation, enforcement and awareness raising, the importance of the environment and our need to protect it has risen up to political agenda, and we must ensure that the standards set by the EU are sustained and improved upon as we continually strive for a better environment. However, we know that there is a constant tension and often contradiction at the heart of trade policy and a desire to see environmental protection between predicting and sustaining the environment and adhering to the neoliberal economic doctrine driven by the EU, the ECB and the IMF. Those institutions often talk a good game in terms of environmentalism, but it always seems to play second or third fiddle. We can see examples of the tensions that are playing out here in Scotland with the very powerful airline industry. The Scottish Government sets much laudied targets to carbon emissions, but at the same time promotes airport and air-root expansion, the scrapping of air passenger duty and our cheerleaders for heat row expansion. All of that will result in more flights, more pollution and more greenhouse gases. Once again, economic gain trumps environmental protectionism, and the EU falls into the very same trap. Yes, they have put in place worthy directives that have been transposed into their law, but they are also enthralled to many of the corporations who pollute and damage their environment, who exploit workers and who avoid tax on an industrial scale as they put profits before people, planet and communities. Tita and Sita have been mentioned. Those are cases in point. Both of those deals are currently being negotiated outside democratic lines of accountability, a situation that I believe goes to the very heart of the democratic void at the centre of the EU. Agreement is more concerned with protecting free trade than protecting communities and the environment. Agreements that will seek corporations at the heart of policymaking, with a seat at the table. If, and it is a big if, if Governments then put in place policy and legislation that runs counter to corporate interests, then that could see those democratically elected Governments taken to court ensued. It has happened in Canada, Australia and elsewhere. What arrogance, what an affront to democracy. I believe that it is for those reasons and many more that voters across the UK voted leave. I do not think that those things could not happen here. Imagine if T-Tip had been up and running. We might now be in a position where any of us or some other similar company were dragging the Scottish Government through the investor state disputes settlement system to stop a democratically elected Parliament from deciding its own policy on something like fracking. I am raising those concerns and will continue to raise many more as the debate over the terms of Brexit unfolds because, as a political class here in Scotland, the political class coalesce around a narrative that seeks to frustrate the democratic will of the people who voted in the referendum not as separate nations but as one entity. We are in danger of fulfilling Monbiol's gloomy prediction and I say that as someone who voted remain. I fail here to heed the warnings and hear the voices of marginalised communities across Europe. I fail here to take urgent action on mass youth unemployment in Spain, Portugal, Croatia and Italy and elsewhere to listen to those who are forced to leave their homelands to find work. Often very low-paid exploitative work elsewhere will drive people towards the simplistic solutions of the far-right and threatened greater instability on the continent. Finally, we all know that there is a rocky road ahead with Brexit, but if all we talk about is doom and gloom, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. We now have the opportunity to argue for a social Europe, for a progressive Europe, for a Europe that protects our environment and puts people in communities first. The opportunity to make those points is here and now and not to focus on what I continually will call project fear on steroids. I say to the public in gallery not to applaud please. Finlay or even one person Emma Harper would fall by Finlay Carson. I very much welcome the Scottish Government's motion on securing the interests of the environment and continuing progress on climate change following the EU referendum result. Since the SNP came to power in 2007, climate change is a key area in which Scotland has formed a distinctive approach. When it gained royal assent, the Climate Change Scotland Act in 2009 was the most ambitious piece of climate change legislation anywhere in the world. We have already exceeded one target set in that legislation by reducing emissions by 42 per cent six years earlier than expected. The Scottish Government will now set a new and, I am sure, more testing target for 2020 of reducing actual emissions by a further, potentially, 50 per cent. In May, Nicola Sturgeon appointed Scotland's first-ever Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, showing the importance that we continue to place on our ambitions in this area. There is no doubt that the European Union has played a vital role in securing collective 28-country action and progress on climate change, nor that Scotland has led, by example, as a devolved nation within that union. However, the environmentalists have voiced a number of concerns about how the UK will proceed as it leaves the EU, drag in Scotland with it and how that might affect our ambitions here in Scotland. Commenting on the morning of the referendum result, Richard Dixon, director of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said that many of the politicians backing the leave vote are climate sceptics and are against renewable energy and are much of the red tape that they complain about are the laws that have given us cleaner air and water and forced companies to reduce pollution. Unfortunately, those fears appear to be well-founded. Two days after the EU fast-tracked the ratification of the Paris climate deal, Theresa May failed to make mention of her own plans for ratification of the agreement in her keynote speech to the Conservative Party conference. The Prime Minister's decision not to address this issue follows a worrying trend in her premiership, which began with the abolition of the Department for Energy and Climate Change back in July. DECC was one of the course. It was set up to implement the Climate Change Act. This process will now be overseen by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which was described by David Powell of the New Economics Foundation as, and I quote, every bit as likely to prop up the oil and gas industry and build nuclear power stations as it is to lead in green technology. Another indication of Theresa May's attitude towards tackling climate change can be seen in her cabinet appointments. Environment Secretary Andrea Leadsam voted against key measures to stop climate change, including against setting a target on reducing carbon emissions in both 2012 and 2016. Ms Leadsam was a devout supporter of Vote Leave, and she is joined by several other Brexiteers in the cabinet. The link between climate deniers and Eurosceptics became clearer during the EU referendum campaign. In February, it was revealed that the Climate Denying Think Tank Global Warming Policy Foundation had moved its headquarters into the same building as the Brexit campaign groups, Business for Britain and Vote Leave. The Think Tank was established by Nigel Lawson, who coincidentally also headed up the Conservatives Vote Leave group. It was a natural alliance formed from the shared belief that market freedom trumps all and should not be interfered with by regulations or state intervention. With political will, we can, of course, take action to tackle climate change in or out of the EU. However, to determine whether or not the will is there, we must look at who has the power and whether they can think what action is worth taking. No matter how hard Scotland pushes for progress, we will be limited by the policies of a Westminster Government hostile to the notion of taking real action on climate change. For example, efforts to support and expand renewable energy production in Scotland have been key to our progress. EU funding has been vital to the development of this industry. However, it seems likely that the power that the EU has to set renewable targets will now be transferred to a hostile UK Government. The EU Renewable Energy Directive, which requires the UK to source 15 per cent of its energy from renewables by 2020, was already unpopular among Conservative MPs who had lobbied against an extension of those targets before June's referendum. The renewables obligation will now close to all new-generating capacity on 31 March 2017. On lobbying, does the member support her party's decision to support the expansion of Heathrow? For me, the expansion of Heathrow is part of the Government's decision to support it, but we are aware that we can offset potential emissions by other measures. As the First Minister reported at one of our events, we have to be aware of the offset of economic delivery and growth versus climate change, so we will do whatever we need to do to balance it. The plans that have been criticised by a wide range of experts and stakeholders and the research conducted by the Scottish Renewables before the EU referendum suggested that investors were already less willing to lend to wind farm projects. The reality of Brexit is that it puts at risk significant investment and jobs, many of which could be located in my own region. The best way forward for us now is to maintain Scotland's relationship with the EU and our place in the single market by whichever means necessary. Scotland will continue to deliver global leadership through involvement in the UN climate talks. I also welcome Scottish Government's plans to work with the Committee on Climate Change to develop a new climate change bill while we continue to fulfil obligations under the 2009 act. Finlay Carson, followed by Stuart Stevenson. Here we are again today, more than four months after the EU referendum, and it is another chapter in the series of debates trying to hide the SNP Government's failure and, once again, blaming either Westminster or Brexit. Whether we like it or not, whether we supported it or not, the UK is leaving the European Union and we have to and we will make a success of it. Presiding Officer, we have another debate today that is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide SNPs inadequacies and failings when it comes to the environment and climate change. I quote from the Scottish Wildlife Trust. The state of Scotland's natural environment is inextricably linked to Scotland's future preparates prosperity, the wellbeing of its people and Scotland's ability to cope with the effects of climate change. The quality of Scotland's natural environment and being renowned for maintaining high environmental standards are both significant to brand Scotland and hence Scotland's economy. The tourism sector is worth at least £11.6 billion. Nature-based tourism alone is estimated to generate at least £1.4 billion, with around 39,000 full-time equivalent jobs. So there is no doubt that climate change is very important to Scotland. Moving forward, in or out of the European Union, we must take every step to ensure that all our efforts and initiatives will enhance the protection of our vital and natural environment. It is disappointing that the cabinet secretary suggests that if we are out of the EU, we will not strive or possibly achieve the highest standards of environmental protection and Mr Ruskell suggests that, if we do not have the stick of Europe, we are unlikely to carry through some of the policies and current standards that we have at the moment. In my constituency of Galloway and West Dumfries, more than £300 million can be attributed to tourism. Our natural environment is of huge importance, covering marine, coastal and hill habitats. Eco-tourism is the fundamental basis for this industry. Today's motion states that the membership of the EU has ensured progress on a wide range of environmental issues in Scotland and continues to underpin vital environmental projects. However, our amendment states that the EU has at times aided to progress in certain areas with a whole variety of international organisations and nations who should also be commended for their work. However, the real problem for the Scottish Government is that it cannot get it right even with us inside the EU. As with agriculture and the cap debacle, where they were very fortunate not to be faced with a very heavy fine, the same can be said about the rushed and poorly thought-out salmon conservation regulations. This Government failed to defend the EU to the EU that Scotland has long practised regulatory conservation of fish stocks under the 2003 salmon act. Instead of gathering factual evidence on mixed-stock fisheries, the Government used inadequate, scientifically and analytically inappropriate stock modelling to create a quick fix that was acceptable to the EU and to avoid further fines. Too often, the Government picks and chooses when to use proper scientific research. The Government has been forced to impose draconian catch and release restrictions based on a flawed and poorly-researched river categorisation basis. While I accept that measures are necessary to conserve salmon stocks for future sustainability, the process that this Government used to categorise a river was clearly flawed and lacked the scientific evidence that should have been sought by this Government. In Dumfries and Galloway, special traditional fishing was given a dispensation on the river Anin on historical grounds. However, the river Nith was not afforded the same comfort despite both rivers flowing into the Solway Firth and having similar historic fishing rights. Instead, what we got was a model based on the number of historic catches with no consideration for the number of people who fish in our rivers or the water quality. In some ways, we should not be total surprised at this presiding officer. This is another example of SNP centralisation where they have adopted a one-size-fits-all approach to every river in the country. As the result of that has been devastating for not only the fishing industry but the tourist businesses that rely on fishermen. In Dumfries, for example, the number of fishing tickets that have been issued on the river Nith is halfed, with fishing rate charges now totaling more than ticket sales can cover. Worryingly, 150-year-old commercial wild salmon fishery in my constituency, which has been a long-standing heritage, education and tourist attraction, was closed for three years in April for conservation purposes, but it is in danger of being closed permanently if the Government proceeds on the current course. The cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government need to get a grip on this situation. Scotland is a world famous location for wild fishing and it is important for Scotland's economy as a whole, but particularly in areas such as my constituency, where fishing helps underpin many communities. If the high-handed and one-size-fits-all approach continues, we will see local economies hit hard. The wild fishing industry is a very big part of Scotland's tourist industry. Whether in or out of Europe, this Government needs to step up to the mark with regard to the huge challenges brought on by climate change. The fact of the matter is that the Scottish Government can no longer hide behind the failures when it comes to Scotland's wild fisheries industry. We on this side believe that we need locally-based river management plans supported with proper scientific and circumstantial evidence. That is something that the Scottish Government could do inside or outside the European Union. I am in my last minute. I can give you time if you wish, Mr Carson. Thank you for taking that intervention. With regards to Dumfries and Galloway constituency, I am well aware of the fishing issues that are going ahead. We attended one of the research areas that was conducted in the river fleet, and the scientific evidence will be brought forward. The same constituents have contacted me as well, and I have agreed to represent those people to the Scottish Government. Finlay Carson. I take on board your comments, but we are only looking at the scientific evidence after we have already had one year where catch and release has been implemented. We have seen businesses in Newton's duet lose out by dropping fishermen. Post Brexit, as I have said in the chamber before, the Scottish Government has a unique opportunity to revitalise Scotland's fishing communities and create an all-inclusive and effective sustainable system. To conclude, instead of hauling Scotland back to the division of 2014 with a constant threat of a second referendum on independence, the Scottish Government should get back to its day job of delivering for Scotland. Stuart Stevenson, to be followed by John Scott. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Here we are today, and still no plan for Brexit, no definition even for Brexit, to echo the words of the previous speaker, Finlay Carson. Let me just address his most recent topic. In 1968, I was a salmon water bella for the Tay Salmon Fisheries Board. As a minister, I had the great privilege of having dinner with the fisheries board in his constituency, who, at that time, I'm uncertain, it was 2008 or 2009, reported as a result of environmental improvements under the previous Labour Liberal Administration and continued under this Government, the number of wild fish in the nith had quadrupled. So I'm slightly at odds with what I'm hearing now, but of course it may all have gone the wrong direction since then, but I rather suspect not. As others have done, let me declare that I am the species champion, and I think that someone with a sense of humour offered me this particular one for the European spiny lobster. I want to just address a couple of things that have come up in the debate so far. Nigel Farage, not the most reliable of sources for political facts, I accept, during the recent referendum campaign, quoted from research done by Business for Britain, that UK and EU councillor ministers have been overruled on 55 occasions. My research shows that that's entirely wrong. It was 56 occasions. To give some context to that, there were 2,466 decisions. Therefore, the number of occasions on which the UK failed to get its own way was just over 1 per cent of the time. The UK has not chosen to reject the overwhelming majority of laws and regulations that have come via the EU Council of Ministers. In the debate that we have, it's always as well to base some of what we say on facts. I'm not going to claim that the UK said that all those that it supported were perfect in every detail. There's always compromise in those matters. I must say that, as the minister who took our climate change act through Parliament and you'll be delighted to know that I think that I've got six or so minutes today. I had two hours and 25 minutes to speak on the subject at stage three in 2009, and the Queen graciously provided royal assent for the act on my Ruby wedding anniversary on 1 August 2009 to my wife's immense delight. I apologise unreservedly to Parliament for this Government failing to meet its targets. We promised that the reduction for 2020 would be delivered in 2020, and I unreservedly apologise for our delivering it in 2014. I similarly unreservedly apologise to Parliament that the Scottish Government is so far ahead on its renewable energy targets beating out of the park all the targets that were set. Our failures are to be gloried in not to be derided. I certainly will. Mark Ruskell recognised the Government's strong records on electricity given difficult times, given subsidy cuts, but isn't that the case that we're probably going to miss a 2020 target on heat? Stuart Stevenson? I'm not here to defend everything the Government has or has not done, and I accept that, in the pan-a-play—oh, no, no, no. I'm entirely happy to say that we set ourselves collectively and unanimously in 2009 a challenging set of targets across a range of areas, and heat was one of the more challenging ones, where there's clearly more work to be done. Let me absolutely say that. I want to pick up a couple of other things. I direct Morris Golden to schedule 5 section E1 of the 1998 Scotland Act which relates to transport. I can find that we have no power whatsoever to legislate in relation to electric cars. We can provide electric charging points, we can subsidise councils and campaigns to encourage, but we have no powers whatsoever over electric cars. I will, if it's brief, please. Liam McArthur. I am terribly grateful to Stuart Stevenson. In relation to electric vehicles, would he accept that there is a great deal more to be done, not just in terms of the installation of the infrastructure, but its maintenance, which is proving a real problem for a lot of EV users across Scotland? I'm not personally aware of that, but I don't attempt to rebut it. I have myself now got a little hybrid car, which is just terrific. It's five years old and it's doing sometimes 100 miles per gallon, which I just absolutely love. Of course, that illustrates a very important point about addressing environmental issues. I'm not just benefiting the climate, my wallet is getting a wee handout as well, and that's often the case that the Tories fail to recognise. Looking at what the substitution that the Tories want to put in the motion today recognises the positive impact that being part of the UK has made on climate change, I await news of what that might be. I recognise absolutely the negative impacts of the interference with renewable support that has come from the UK Government. That has not been a helpful place to be for a single second. The environment is, of course, not simply the purview of a single state, but it is, in fact, an international issue. One that affects people across Europe and the world beyond that. That's why it's vital that we continue to have the kind of focus that the EU has encouraged us to have and has led the way for countries across our continent. That's why we need to continue to adhere to the highest possible standards. We mustn't sign up to the Tories' intention to disconnect the peoples of the nations of the UK from international agreements that support the environment—that world that we will bequeath to the next generation who will follow us. John Scott, followed by Angus MacDonald. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I begin by declaring an interest as a hill farmer and food producer? I also welcome this debate today in the future of our Scottish environment post Brexit. None of you will be surprised to know that I have been allocated the slot in this debate dealing with land use, excluding forestry that is already elegantly discussed by my colleague Alexander Burnett. For me, and notwithstanding the fact that I voted to remain within the EU, Brexit offers the UK and Scotland a chance to re-examine our land use strategy and the environmental goals that we all want to achieve. While developing a spatial land use strategy was considered during Richard Lochhead's term in office and a land use strategy was laid before Parliament on 22 March, the day before dissolution, we still have a sectoral piecemeal approach, with constant and abiding tensions still in place between food producers, environmentalists, windfarm and tourism interests. Our Government is not always certain about its ambitions themselves for our rural areas. We know that the Government has already failed in several areas, such as delivering better air quality and does not comply with Annex 15 of its own CAFs report. We also know that rural land use emissions and sequestration targets, while difficult to measure, are probably not being met as fully as they might be. We know that targets on native woodland planting and restoration needs further work, and we know that deer management systems are not yet effective, try as we might. We also know that Scotland's carbon footprint is increasing instead of decreasing. However, today I want to talk about two main subjects overall. Stewart Stevenson Could he explain whose numbers he found the remark that our carbon footprint is increasing rather than decreasing? Whose numbers is he quoting? John Scott I think that that was an evidence provided to the Environment, Committee just recently, and you will find it there. I am happy to provide the paperwork for you if that would be of help, Mr Stevenson. However, today I want to talk about two main subjects overall strategic planning and peatland restoration. Indeed, in the recent SRUC report, which recently reviewed rural policy in Scotland, it stated that, whilst there are strategies for land use, the land use strategy and spatial planning, national planning framework, there is no overall strategy for rural Scotland and all that it encompasses. What is absent is a strategic framework setting out specific rural outcomes, a baseline, targets, indicators, monitoring or review processes to see whether targets are being met and the identification of the means by which collaborative working would be put in place to achieve them. However, for me it is quite clear what the future should be, and that can be summed up in two words, working landscapes. Brexit offers us a much-needed opportunity and will indeed be a driver to reset our priorities. While we welcome the land use strategy laid before Parliament on 22 March 2016, we still need a coherent strategic spatial land use plan. In other words, more than we already have, cabinet secretary. However, today we are concerned that the Scottish Government may be seeking to use Brexit as a way of driving a wedge between previously shared UK and Scottish objectives, and that must not be allowed to happen, and the cabinet secretary's opening speech has certainly confirmed that view. Instead, the Scottish Government must get on with the day job, start delivering on the objectives and targets that it has already defined and set for itself, and not see that this is an opportunity to weaken or deregulate environmental legislation or targets, a concern also expressed by the Scottish wildlife trust. Agri environment schemes, funded by puller 2 payments, must continue to be supported for the real and obvious public benefits that they provide, and continuation of those and other schemes must be assured beyond 2020. The cabinet secretary's enthusiasm for the environment is very well known, and this is further evidence by a cheerful and enthusiastic approach to this brief, not once but twice, and so she will know that one of the areas that needs her special attention is peat restoration. Without wishing to invoke too much the memory of Rob Gibson's lectures in the chamber on the importance of peat restoration, or as Jackson Carlaw memorably put it, peat wetting, the serious point is that the Government has not put its back into peatland restoration, which would be a hugely efficient way of capturing carbon. Indeed, the Scottish Government's low-carbon Scotland report 2013 suggested that up to 21,000 hectares per year of peatland restoration is technically feasible. Professor Robin Matthews of the James Hutton Institute estimated that restoring 21,000 hectares per year would contribute to an 8 per cent reduction in total Scottish carbon emissions, yet between 1990 and 2012 the average area of restored peatland was only 1,400 hectares per year. Now it is true to be fair that between 2012 and 2015 between 3,000 and 6,000 hectares per year was achieved, but it is self-evident that this is far short of the potential 21,000 hectares per year, which is the figure that is technically possible in the Government's own report. Certainly it will be a big ask for the Government to provide funding on the scale previously provided by Europe, but, as a method of carbon capture, it is certainly one of the easiest and most cost-deficient ways of doing this. Of course, the Government makes this task more difficult for itself by damaging peat flows, by allowing wind farms to be put on peatland areas, often cutting down trees that are already planted on those flows in areas such as Caithness and Sutherland and the South West of Scotland. Finally, I have a question from the cabinet secretary, which perhaps she might wish to address in her closing remarks. Will funding be allocated in this year's budget for peatland restoration, and if not, as I suspect, why not? Angus MacDonald, to be followed by Gillian Martin. Many thanks, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate today, not least the opportunity to highlight concerns regarding the environment raised with me both locally and nationally since the Brexit vote on 23 June. At the outset, can I say how pleased I was to see the cabinet secretary announced during summer recess on 24 July that the Scottish Government would refuse to turn back the clock on environmental laws and will abide by European Union rules protecting wildlife and preventing pollution despite the Brexit vote. I pledge not to weaken a raft of Brussels legal measures, regarded as crucial for conserving plants and animals and keeping air water and land clean and healthy, must have been music to the ears of every environmental activist in the country. However, things have moved on slightly since July, although we are still none the wiser as to the detail of the Brexit negotiations, which is probably because the UK Government would appear to not yet know what it is trying to achieve itself, which makes life extremely difficult for the rest of us. This uncertainty is making some of my constituents in Falkirk East slightly nervous, not least the residents of Grangemouth, who live cheek by cheek with the petrochemical and agrochemical industries in the port. Local residents have expressed their concerns to me regarding local air quality in the past. Although there have been breaches of SO2 emissions in Grangemouth in the past and considering the concentration of industry in and around Grangemouth, it is thanks to EU directives on air quality that there are not more complaints or indeed breaches. Grangemouth is home to six of Scotland's 15 large chemical industry association-registered companies. SEPA, of course, has oversight over large industrial sites in the towns such as Ineos and Calachem, and I have worked closely with those firms to improve working practices and tightened up procedures in order to ensure that they are operating within the legislative framework already in place and to highlight best practice for operation within the limits of air quality laid down by the EU. There is still work to do with ensuring that those high standards are maintained, but the uncertainty over whether compliance will be as easily enforceable without the back-up of the EU should be of some concern to us all, which brings me to our international obligations. There is no doubt that post Brexit there will need to be some co-ordination between the countries of the UK. The EU has until now provided that envelope, so we need to know at an early date what arrangements will replace it. There could be a scenario, for example, where the UK could force Scotland to accept things like GM crops by signing trade deals, for example, with little or no input from Scotland's Government or Parliament. It is fair to say that there is significant concern out there regarding the implications of Brexit on UK environment and climate change law and policy. For example, there are concerns in the academic world from a Scottish perspective regarding the UK nationally determined contribution, or NDC, under the Paris agreement. In a nutshell, NDCs have documents containing details concerning what each country intends to do to contribute to the two degrees goal enshrined in the Paris agreement in each of the five-year cycles envisioned in the treaty. The first such cycle will cover the period 2020-25. From the beginning, EU member states opted to implement jointly their commitments under the climate treaties. Therefore, in 2015, the EU submitted an NDC on behalf of all the EU member states. From now on, however, the UK will no longer have the luxury of leaving that work to EU officials and will have to undertake that work itself. The ratification process of the Paris agreement has therefore seen EU member states, for example France, depositing their ratification instrument as well as a declaration asserting that they intend to rely upon the NDC that was submitted by the EU in 2015. Instead, the NDCs of some EEA countries such as Norway and Iceland assert that they intend to pursue their mitigation action in co-operation with the EU. Although presently still a member of the EU, the UK will no longer be one after 2020, when the first cycle envisioned in the Paris agreement kicks in. In order to comply with its formal obligation to submit an NDC under the Paris agreement, the UK will have to produce one of its own. The question has to be asked, has the UK got the capacity to do this? This will be the first time that the UK engages in such an exercise. The closest proxy are EU negotiations concerning the so-called effort-sharing decisions, through which EU member states shared amongst themselves the burdens associated with achieving the targets embedded in EU climate law and the Kyoto protocol. Yet in that context, it was a matter of deciding how much each member state would do after the decision on how much to collectively achieve had already been taken at EU level. Instead, it is a matter for the UK to decide on its own, and hopefully through the consultation of all devolved Administrations, we will wait and see at the level of ambition to embed in its NDC and how to achieve it. With Brexit, the UK is or should be about to engage in an exercise to decide what it wants to include in its NDC for the period 2020-25. Since there is no precedent for this, it must be stressed to the UK Government by the cabinet secretary and the First Minister that devolved Administrations must be involved in that process. In closing, it is clear that, with our strong domestic climate change legislation, we must be determined that Brexit must not result in a reduction in ambition when it comes to climate change action in Scotland. I was encouraged to hear the cabinet secretary say at this week's ECCLR committee that the Scottish Government is proceeding as planned with the climate change plan, giving some certainty during a very uncertain situation. While the environment policy is devolved, policies and countries are linked in many ways. Countries working together are able to achieve better outcomes than they can in isolation, but let's remember that the EU referendum result cannot reduce the strength of laws made in this Scottish Parliament and we must ensure that we all do all that we can to ensure that our regulatory bodies do all that they can to regulate and protect our environment. Before I start my contribution, I declare that I am the parliamentary liaison officer for the cabinet secretary for the environment, climate change and land reform. There is a considerable concern that one of the main impacts of leaving the EU will be the inability of institutions conducting environmentally important research to access the European funding programmes that they have enjoyed up until this point. A cursory look at any of our leading institutions carrying out environmental protection research will reveal that a great deal of programmes are supported by EU funding, some completely and others in part. Those research programmes that underpin our world leading reputation for work on the bio-economy and food security, as well as the environmental protection and climate change, are not just science projects in hallowed ivory towers, but research that is powering Scotland's economy and worldwide reputation, including Scotland's world-renowned food production and export industries, as Kate Forbes alluded to in her speech. There are too many examples to mention, so I have chosen a few. Scotland's rural college heads up the land economy, environment and society research group, which has done pioneering research on sustainable agriculture, food supply chains, environmental management, sustainable use of natural resources, environmental economics, climate change and rural community resilience. There is the Rower Institute in Aberdeen, which is right next to my constituency, which is a world leader in animal and human nutrition. In my constituency of Aberdeenshire East, the European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre, which is also known as the Aberdeenshire offshore wind farm, is running an environmental research project into the interactions between offshore wind, the natural world and the local human environment. The £3 million project will get half its funding from the EU. The results of the programme will facilitate continued development of environmentally sustainable offshore wind energy using sound science to develop an empirical evidence base and novel methods to advance and streamline environmental impact assessments. It must also be said very strongly that many of those research projects are staffed by leading academics in their field healing from across the EU. There it is again, the question of the freedom of movement and the impact that will be felt on our labour market, not least in our scientific and research communities who have been able to attract the best talent from across the European Union. We are poised to innovate on carbon emissions management, or should I say, we were poised. I want to mention the cancelled UK research funding for the carbon capture project, which, if continued, could have seen Peter Head in my friend and colleague who is not here just now, Stuart Stevenson's constituency, be a world leader in that technology, which would have assisted considerably in meeting Scotland's emissions reduction targets, technology that would have provided jobs and been patented and exported across the globe to reduce emissions in other persistently fossil fuel reliant economies, by which I mean pretty much every world economy. The disastrous cancellation of UK Government funding for the carbon carbon capture project is a stark indication of the UK's environmental intentions. I would like to think that the cancellation might have been mitigated somewhat by access to EU funding to allow it to continue, but I guess we will never know as that option is now close to us. Mr Golden talked about grievance politics. I am not really involved in grievance politics. What I would say is that if you do not really want to hear our grievances, do not cause our grievances. Perhaps your UK Government colleagues do not pull the rug from under projects like CCS or shut down the renewables obligation or do not cut subsidies for those wishing to play their part by investing in a wind turbine. We might not feel so aggrieved. My point is that I do not feel particularly comfortable knowing that funding for research is reliant on the UK Government for whom emissions reduction or issues around climate change is not a priority. I must admit that when I read the Tory amendment to the motion and saw the phrase and I quote, recognises the positive impact that being part of the UK has had on climate change in Scotland, I had to take a wee moment to calm myself. As I remembered how former Tory Chancellor George Osborne swept aside the CCS project to divert the money elsewhere. I am nervous of a UK Government who have allowed fracking contracts to be awarded under national parks with no debate and have plowed on with that technology without any serious research into the environmental consequences. I wonder if Mr Golden and Mr Burnett's very heartfelt comments about establishing more woodland mean that they would agree with me that fracking under areas of natural significance is an abomination. Do I trust a Government with that kind of report to be supporting renewable energy or emission reduction research programmes? Frankly, I don't. I don't think I've got time, Mr Finlay. EU funding streams are vital to the environmental research in Scotland. We need answers now from the UK Government on what is set to replace them post 2020, and how Scottish research organisations will be able to access them. We now move to the closing speeches. I call on Liam McArthur. Six minutes please, Mr McArthur. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, because I can start by taking my lead from the spokesman of the Spiny Lobster, Stuart Stevenson, and declaring interest as an ambassador of the Scottish Primrose. I'm showing a softer side, Deputy Presiding Officer. Unlike Neil Finlay, I'm not a veteran of those Brexit debates, but unlike Finlay Carson and his colleagues, I've actually been pleasantly surprised by the extent to which this debate for large parts has broken free of the Brexit shackles and, indeed, considered the wider issues relating to the environment. I think that the Cabinet Secretary indeed, in her opening remarks, set the tone in that regard, but I think that a number of speakers have followed that on. I thought that Gillian Martin's comments in relation to the leading role that Scottish research plays in shaping the environmental landscape is entirely valid. I cited the example of Herriot Walk, but I made clear at that point that there were many other examples in which Gillian Martin alluded to many of those. I thought that Mark Ruskell, in a very considerate speech, covered the ground probably more expansively than anyone. I had some concerns about where he seemed to be going in relation to agriculture, but, even there, I believe that there is a challenge set down to those in the farming sector to step up to the plate. Kate Forbes, likewise, made some very interesting points about the importance of natural capital, although I think that I would draw violent exception to her assertion that her constituency is perhaps the most environmentally significant, but she would expect nothing less. I did not cover any of the amendments in my opening remarks, so let me address that shortcoming. I think that David Stewart's amendment makes some very useful points about collective action in protecting the marine environment, and the collaborative approach to research across the EU underpinning environmental protection—a point that I made earlier. I thought that, in his remarks, he rightly suggested that it is not a one-way process. The UK has been instrumental in shaping the environmental agenda at an EU-level, particularly in relation to wildlife and climate change. Morse-Golden's amendment similarly makes some reasonable points, but it glosses over the damage that has been done by the Tory's failure to deal with the divisions in the party over Europe. Unlike Stewart Stevenson, I agree that being part of the UK can help us to meet our climate change ambitions, but not if the current UK Tory Government persists with a reckless approach towards the development of renewables and reversing the progress that was made on the Green agenda under the previous coalition. Finally, Morse-Golden's amendment was written in far more moderate terms, and I have seen iterations of that in the past, and I would expect nothing less of him. There has been more focus, more scrutiny, more vigilance on trade agreements than ever before over recent times. I think that that is a good thing. I think that it has brought a greater degree of transparency and a better and improved process as a result. Liberal Democrats have been alert to a number of the concerns that have been raised, and they have raised those both at a UK and EU level as well as securing change as a result. However, as a trading nation, we benefit from trading, and it is not clear to me what we would be asking the UK Government to do by passing that amendment today. Mark Ruskell? I hear the member's points on this issue, and I would take it that he probably won't be backing the amendment. However, a number of your MSPs did back similar forms of words pre the Holyrood election, so is this going to be another tuition fees moment for you? Liam McArthur? There you go. There's me being complimentary of Mark Ruskell and he just throws it back at you. No, I think that there are genuine concerns that have been expressed about TTIP and about CETA, and those through the process have shone a light on that process, like no other trade agreement negotiation in the past. We've highlighted those concerns, we've sought changes as a result of them, but at this stage in the process, it's not clear to me what it is that we're asking the UK Government to do. However, turning to the broader debate, Scottish Government is anxious for us to focus entirely—not at the moment, Mr Finlay, I'm sorry—to focus entirely on the issue and the consequences of Brexit, and I don't diminish those at all. I wholeheartedly agree with the cabinet secretary's remarks, not just about the importance of the research, but about the damaging effect that treating non-UK EU nationals as some sort of pawn in a game has been utterly self-defeating. However, it would be a missed opportunity if we don't shine a light on how we're doing as an EU member state now, or consider what ambitions should be whatever the future holds. This Parliament has passed world-leading legislation—I pay tribute to the part that Stuart Stevenson played in that—although he was right that it was a collectively and unanimously passed. However, again, I think that he would accept that that was the easy part. Since then, our mission's targets have been met once in five years. The UK Committee on Climate Change has concluded that only two out of 28 Scottish Government adaptation priorities had plans in place, actions being delivered and progress being made. The report also said that two-thirds of the Government's policies and proposals had no timescale for delivery, so there's a great deal of work to be done there. Two of those areas, as I highlighted before, are in areas of heat and transport, where we need a step change. WWF has talked of a 10-fold increase needed in relation to heat from renewables up from the current 4 per cent. The Warm Homes Bill offers an excellent opportunity when we need a commitment to rapid growth in district heating and renewable heat. We need to translate energy efficiency from a national strategic priority to delivery on the ground, including the necessary investment. As an aside, I do believe that there is a need for catch-up zones to ensure that resources are targeted at those areas that are falling behind are at the top of the lead table in relation to fuel poverty. Transport to electric vehicles—the take-up in Orkney—is higher than anywhere else, but the figures for Scotland as a whole are behind the rest of the UK. However, those will not be achieved, as I said earlier, by the £250 million tax cut for the airline industry through APD, nor will they be achieved by the support for Heathrow expansion. In order to meet our emissions target, Heathrow expansion is likely to mean that ministers will have to cut airport capacity in regional airports or other sectors of the economy. I firmly believe that the UK's vote to leave the EU was a wholly regrettable in retrograde steps. The collective action on the environment has been one of the clearest examples of where the EU has acted as a driver for change and progress. However, today's debate has highlighted that there is a wide range of areas where the Parliament must, in the future, whatever the future holds, focus attention in putting the Government to account. I move to Ross Greer, please. No more than six minutes, please, Mr Greer. Considerable criticism can be levelled at the European Union. The Green amendment today certainly does that without losing sight of the broader issue at stake, but the progress that we have made as a continent in safeguarding our environment and tackling climate change—the most urgent issue of our generation—is a success of the European project. That success here in Scotland and across those islands is potentially under threat from Brexit. If Scotland is forced out of the European Union despite the results of the vote here, there is much that we can protect using the powers of this Parliament, and I welcome the reassurances that the cabinet secretary has given. However, there is much else outwith our control in which we must pressure the Westminster Government to take seriously. Some Conservative colleagues seem keen to derail this debate, to divert from their own party's records and actions. Finally, Carson said that the debate was just a smokescreen for Scottish Government failures, which I found a bit bewildering. The Greens have consistently called out Scottish Government failures in the environment and climate change, but the Conservatives are suggesting that we should not debate the significant impacts that Brexit could have on every portfolio area that this Parliament is responsible for. Maurice Golden almost always makes substantial points in that subject area, which is why he was disappointed that he reverted to the single transferable speech of the Conservative Party post Brexit. That is not what we need in those kinds of debates. Alexander Burnett has raised important points about forestry and planting. He is right that the Scottish Government has failed to make the required progress. I am glad, however, that unlike Mr Burnett's colleagues down south, the Scottish Government has not simply tried to sell off our public glow on forests. The cabinet secretary has noted that. On that point, I am enthusiastic about giving forests to community ownership, and we will object to any Government attempts to sell them off for commercial interests. Excuse me, Mr Greer. Could you two take your private arguments outside? The cabinet secretary has noted that there is significant reason to doubt the UK Government's credibility, given that one of its first acts as a new Government under Theresa May was to abolish the Department for Energy and Climate Change. Responsibility for that has now moved to a new department for business, energy and industrial strategy. I think that that move illustrates the mistake that not just the UK Government but many Governments have made in how they approach tackling climate change. We should be tackling climate change not simply for economic benefits but because there is a moral imperative to do so. We should be bringing every possible resource to bear in this fight. We have no right to leave the environment uninhabitable for future generations. We have no right to reap untold damage on our fellow citizens of the world here and now. Eight of Scotland's hottest years on record were in the last decade. That presents problems for us, but it is not a catastrophe. In May of last year, over 1,300 people died during a 10-day heat wave in Ardra Pradesh. In 2003, members will remember the European heat wave, which killed over 70,000 people. Climate change is killing people here and now. The think tank founded by Coffin Ann, former UN General Secretary, estimates that over 300,000 people die a year because of climate change. It is the ultimate example of the poor suffering the consequences of actions taken by the earth richest. I do not mean to say that solutions to climate change are separate from the economics. Indeed, we will only tackle this crisis with wholesale economic transformation and by achieving the people's Europe that Neil Finlay referred to—one that I am optimistic that Scotland can still play a full part in. Today, at First Minister's Questions, Patrick Harvie spoke of climate justice. Almost all of us in this Parliament are, in theory, committed to climate justice. I say in theory that this commitment is not compatible with commitments to maximise the lifespan of the fossil fuel economy or to support airport expansion and tax cuts for those respective industries. That is why we appreciate, on the green side of this debate, the amendment in Liam McArthur's name. I failed to see why the amendment removes reference to the Scottish Government deserving a role in the Brexit negotiations. I think that that is an unfortunate omission. The European Union has been a leader in the— Liam McArthur. I am very grateful to Ross Greer for taking an intervention. I think that the point to be made was that broadening the process out to ensure that wider civic society, the expertise that there is to be found in Scotland, has a place in that debate needs to be secured, not simply the Scottish Government's role in however the UK Government discussions in JMC have evolved. Ross Greer I thank Liam McArthur for that point, and I agree enthusiastically. I just feel that it is taken away from what was a necessary inclusion. The Scottish Government does have an issue with being involved in the Brexit negotiations. As I said, the European Union has been a leader in the fight against climate change and to protect our environment, not just a follower, as the Conservatives' amendment seems to imply. David Stewart raised the example of what the EU has achieved for our beaches previously polluted by Sooch, but transformed in recent decades. However, as the Green amendment highlights, the European Union is far from perfect and should be robustly challenged on the priority that is given to economic growth and a commitment to neoliberal economics, which is incompatible with ending the climate crisis. Just today, CETA, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, has made a comeback. This trade deal between the EU and Canada places hard-won progress on environmental protections at risk. Angus MacDonald rightly raised the threat that it could pose in Scotland of having GM crops forced upon us. At its core, CETA is a deal that places corporate power above democracy. The dispute mechanism proposed result in secretive corporate courts that are unaccountable to our elected parliaments, and is able to reverse their decisions or even punish them—punish us—for having made those decisions. We in MacArthur asked the cabinet secretary for examples of the dire consequences of those kind of deals. The ISDS, Investors' Estate Dispute Mechanism, mentioned by Neil Findlay, has been used by Viola to sue Egypt for increasing the minimum wage and by numerous energy companies to sue Argentina for freezing energy prices, and the awards given to multinational corporations have been eye-watering. The US company Occidental Petroleum, for example, has one compensation of more than £1.5 billion in a claim against Ecuador. The Parliament does not have the power to stop CETA despite other devolved parliaments, such as in Malonia, having the ability to do so. However, the fight is not over, we can note our concern today and force the Westminster Parliament to address that. The Greens would urge our colleagues across the chamber to support that amendment. I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate today on climate change, environmental protection and Brexit. I intend to focus on some specific threats and try to pose some questions, although I do not know how many answers I have got, to the marine environment, to explore more about research and development and finally to delve more into climate change challenges. In relation to the Green amendment today, referred to by Mark Ruskell, it makes it essential to support it. As he said, the strong democratic heartbeat has to be considered, and on TTIP and CETA, this is something that we feel very strongly about in Scottish Labour as well. We will also be supporting the Scottish Government amendment today. Our marine environment has been immeasurably bettered by the European Union Aki communitaire. The marine issues cannot be effectively tackled without collaboration, and we have a responsibility to maintain or strengthen the collective ambitions that have proven to be sustainable for the environment and economy. Since the 2014 reform, the common fisheries policy has been more robust and it is vital that we maintain Scotland's part in multinational management of shared natural resources. Our fish stocks and coastal communities cannot afford for fishing policy to slip back 10 years again. An essential part of the marine environment has to be the replacement of the European Marine and Fisheries Fund. Scotland benefits from the fund substantially, receiving approximately 42 per cent of the UK's allocation. The coastal communities need a long-term funding assurance to allow them to continue to fish sustainably, diversify their economies and finance new projects. We have now successfully designated a number of marine protected areas, and those must see continued funding and monitoring. I welcome the cabinet secretary's decision to proceed with new special protected areas, as we are still in the EU member. However, I would be interested to know whether she will commit to seeing through those 40 SPAs through to implementation come what may. As highlighted by many members, including Gillian Martin and Liam MacArthur, another serious concern as we leave the European Union is the academic community that the EU fosters. Research and development is collaborative by nature and, in fact, it is prized by the UK in application considerations. Once out of the EU, we run the risk of isolation and there have already been concerns that the UK is an unfavourable research partner due to the funding issue and also the freedom of movement uncertainties. So many environmental issues cannot be overcome by individual national efforts, and it would be a travesty to weaken these knowledge-sharing paths. The briefing from Harriet Watt University demonstrates this starkly through a case study. The Merces project is focused on the restoration of different degraded marine habitats. It is a collaboration between 28 partner institutions, which has been granted 6.65 million of horizon 2020 funding. While initially secure through the UK treasury, the issue of longer-term funding must be squarely faced in the Brexit negotiations for this and many other research projects. Beyond funding considerations, we should also face the removal of a layer of accountability. While many of the EU directors are encompassed in Scottish Government legislation, it must be acknowledged that the loss of funding and the loss of accountability puts R&D at risk, there must not be a loss of impetus. Finally, I want to turn to climate change, about which the Scottish Government motion states that the Scottish Parliament recognises the importance of the EU in securing collective action and progress on climate change. I want to focus on the EU emissions trading scheme for heavy emitters. It is not perfect, but it has focused mines on reduction. Of course, Scotland has its own allowance as part of the EU being the member state. The Committee on Climate Change on a UK level has published a note about Brexit and climate change implications for the UK. It states that it is possible that the UK would remain as part of the scheme even after leaving the EU. More generally, increasing linking rather than de-linking of international carbon trading schemes is desirable in promoting the least cost international path to reducing global emissions. The Prime Minister has made some encouraging moves in relation to climate change, rapid approval of the fifth carbon budget and the announcement finally to ratify the Paris agreement by the end of the year. Members such as Mark Ruskell have highlighted the butchering of the fits, and Emma Harper has highlighted the deplorable deck decision as well. However, when asked by my colleague Barry Gardner, shadow secretary for energy, he highlighted that Jesse Norman, who is the Tory energy minister, replied on the issue that targets could be more testing, could be less testing, or exactly at the level that is required by the ETS itself. Therefore, there does not seem to be anything particularly problematic about it. To me and to Scottish Labour, that last line is extremely worrying. That exemplifies why Scotland, again in the words of the motion, must have full involvement in all UK negotiations, and it is not only about what present Governments do or indeed the next Government, either in Scotland or in the UK, but about establishing and maintaining an international and European framework far into the future beyond our lives on a stable basis and how that can be done. Deputy Presiding Officer, I am pleased that we have had this debate on Scotland's environment and efforts to tackle climate change. I am sure that we all recognise that the natural environment is a key asset for Scotland and that this beauty and heritage must be maintained. It is key in attracting the visitors that we welcome every year and that bring an estimated £1.4 billion to our economy, together with 39,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Our world-renowned food and drinks sector, worth an estimated £5.1 billion in exports, also relies upon our rich natural heritage, not to mention our diverse and unique range of animal species, such as the pine martin or wildcat. Whatever the prevailing or future political context in our country, it is imperative that Scotland's natural environment is maintained and retained for future generations. Our debate today is held in the context of the UK-wide decision to leave the European Union. There are policy areas where we are currently tied to EU legislation that impacts on the environment, such as the emissions trading scheme or the birds and habitats directives. Reference was made to wildlife in the EU context by my colleague Finlay Carson and by Mark Ruskell, who also commented on some of the difficulties being tied to that EU setup brings when the EU gets things wrong. In the areas of environment and climate change policy within Europe, the UK and Scotland have led the way, as has been highlighted by the minister Roseanna Cunningham. Whilst welcoming the vote to leave, we should also have confidence in our own abilities and our own track record. The Scottish Conservative amendment to the Government motion and which I support reflects the reality that we do not fall off a cliff by leaving the European Union any more than we would have fallen off a cliff if we had stayed. It recognises the fact that, within today's globalised world, environment and climate change policy transcends borders, as was pointed out by David Stewart in his speech, not only within Europe but internationally. Many of the UK's commitments are within the context of international frameworks such as the UN sustainable development goals and the Paris agreement on climate change. Following the EU Parliament approval of the Paris agreement, the UK minister Greg Clark committed in September to ratifying it by the end of the year. In contrast to that, at about the same time during the sites convention in Johannesburg, the EU was instrumental in blocking proposals that would have given elephants the highest level of international protection possible. That could have been key to ending the current ivory poaching crisis. So, let us follow success of the EU in environmental matters, but let us not follow its errors. Scotland now controls its own destiny in many of those areas. The Scottish Conservative amendments to the motion call for consideration to be given by the Scottish Government itself to what it can do to protect the Scottish environment. The Scottish Government should recognise what it has already been capable of achieving, and I am delighted to be able to acknowledge that. In certain areas, as we have heard, Scotland can stand with its head held high. However, we cannot rest on our laurels, and there are many areas in which being in or out of the EU is of little consequence. Transport is one sector in which emission levels have fallen by less than 1 per cent in comparison to 1990 levels. For example, St John's Road in Crestorfen here in Edinburgh is among the most polluted in the country. There is work to be done by the Scottish Government here, and as was pointed out by Liam McArthur, this is not predicated on EU membership. Our Scottish transport minister, whether a transport expert or not, needs to get to grips with making our public transport infrastructure more appealing to commuters. Maurice Golden mentioned the example of Norway, whose electric cars form part of the circular economy there, and we need to be more ambitious in Scotland. My colleagues have pointed to where the action of the Scottish Government, irrespective of the EU, has failed to meet targets, but which could be carried out successfully to protect our natural environment in the years to come. Let us look forward, as Alexander Burnett commented on the need to positively contribute to Brexit negotiations from Scotland's point of view. Deputy Presiding Officer, as I come towards my conclusion, I state again that the EU has, in certain areas, indeed had positive effects for Scotland's environment through some of the initiatives that people have pointed out here. It has developed those initiatives within the context of world recognition that our planet may be robust, but it needs to be taken care of. Although there have been failings in the past to take that care and damage has been done, we need to improve upon our stewardship of creation for future generations. Although the UK and Scottish Governments have made progress in some areas, we need to do more. The Scottish Parliament has the power to make further progress, let it do so. The Scottish Conservatives will continue to push the Government to get on with the job that it is tasked with rather than focus on powers that it does not have. I would like, before closing, to commend my parliamentary colleague Stuart Stevenson for his humourful contribution to today's debate. I have benefited from his sense of humour since standing for the Scottish Parliament in 1999 at Hustings against Stuart. We were all very enlightened by his comments on what the Queen's grant of permission to enactment of a piece of legislature can do for domestic relationships. I thank him again for that contribution, Stuart. I also wish that Stuart and the Scottish Government well in recovering from what appears to now be a chronic state of self-induced brexitas. As my colleague John Scott said, you have a job to do. Get on with it. I call Mike Russell, 10 minutes, please, minister. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I start by declaring an interest? As others have done, I have been the species champion of the corn cake and the tree lungwort, but not at the same time, I want to stress. The purpose of these debates, Presiding Officer, is to try and discover common ground to hear new and positive ideas. That is the same idea that is motivating the meetings that I am having with party leaders and much of the discussion that I am taking in across Scotland. Unfortunately, what we have learned today and we learned at the very outset of this debate is that the Scottish Conservatives do not want to take part in that process. Mr Golden was actually very testy about it in his opening speech. Finlay Carson also poo-pooed it, although I am very glad to see that my reasonable friend John Scott welcomed the fact that those debates were taking place. The reason, Presiding Officer, that the Scottish Conservatives do not want to take part in those debates is that they expose the emptiness of their position. If the debates are about bringing ideas and imagination to help Scotland to move forward, they are found wanting. I think that bringing ideas and imagination to the chamber and standing up for our constituents and for Scotland is our day job. So, let me suggest to the Scottish Conservatives that they get back to their day job, they take up their day job and start bringing some ideas and thoughts to this chamber rather than simply complaints. I am delighted to be involved in this debate, not at this moment, Mr Scott, but I will let you in later on. I have some more to say about Mr Scott, which will be positive, of course. It is a pleasure, even with the little advice that I have left today to support my friend Roseanna Cunningham on environmental issues. She succeeded me as environment minister in February 2009. We agree, I think, that the job is the best job in government. I am delighted that it is now a full cabinet rank. She is a great defender and advocate of the Greener Scotland. Her skills, her passion and her knowledge will be needed as never before, because the environment must become a key issue in the Brexit negotiations. It is already clear to me, from the discussions that I have, that the UK Government is not really interested in this issue. It is low down their list of priorities. So, the Scottish Government can help the UK and Europe and might even say immodestly the planet by making sure that it takes centre stage. It has been a pleasure to hear in this debate Claudia Beamish and Mark Ruskell. The three of us are three of the five nominees for the nature of Scotland politician of the year award this year. The other two are Richard Lockhead and Sarah Boyack. I am putting the smart money on Sarah Boyack for her contributions to the chamber, and it is probably important to mention that here, because this is a debate that she would have relished and she would have contributed to with great distinction. But, to less happy matters, Mr Golden opened the debate by saying, I believe Brexit means Brexit. Later on, Mr Burnett told us that we are leaving the European Union and we are going to make a success of it. Just as there was a little red book of Mao quotes, there is now clearly a little blue book of Theresa May quotes, because those are direct quotes from Theresa May, but it will take more than quoting the little blue book to convince anybody in this chamber and anybody in Scotland about the reality of Brexit. What we are hearing from the territories, as the First Minister said this morning, is not collaboration or co-operation, it is capitulation. We are hearing nothing at all that stands up for Scotland, that puts the case for the Scottish case in Brexit, and that was a last true of what Mr Golden had to say. It was Mark Ruskell who made that point almost immediately, because he pointed out that the reliance and the Tory motion on the UN agreements will allow, would allow and undoubtedly will allow the UK to weaken environmental protection, just the type of agreement that the Tories seem to want. He pointed out, if you wanted proof of it, the damage that has been done by the Tories to the renewable infrastructure, since they decided to start reducing the subsidies. If we look for evidence of what the Tory position on Brexit will be on the environment that we see already, it is a desire to weaken standards. Unfortunately, I would have liked to have heard Liam McArthur supporting that, because it is the first time that he has taken part in one of those debates that he said, and he opened very strongly. He said that Brexit was not in the Scottish or Orkney communities interests. He said that EU membership was profoundly in the interests of this country and its constituents. However, the logic of that position would surely put him in the support of ensuring that all the options are considered for the future. Until the Scottish Liberal Democrats are prepared to consider all those options, they are not alas being true to that objective. Liam McArthur? I am very grateful to the minister for his generous remarks. As I pointed out in my comments earlier, yes, Orkney voted in favour of remaining part of the UK, but it voted overwhelmingly more so to remain a part of the UK. That, I would have to say, remains very much their interests. Michael Russell? Mr McArthur is not being asked to make that choice at this present moment, nor are his constituents. What Mr McArthur is being asked to do is to be part of considering the options for the future. Unfortunately, by refusing to consider all those options, he is not taking that forward rationally. Kate Forbes made a very important contribution on natural capital, and it is worth observing that Scotland is the first country to have a natural capital asset register. If I can refer to another contribution that followed immediately on to it from it, Mr Burnett, having talked about making a success of Brexit, then, unfortunately, he said something about the Scottish referendum in 2014 that must be corrected. He said that he understood that those who voted would have the knowledge that people would vote to leave the EU. Well, not everybody did, I have to say, because I refer you to this statement. No means we stay in. We are members of the European Union. That was from Ruth Davidson in September 2014. I give way to Mr Burnett. Just a correction for the record. However, when people voted in the Scottish referendum, they did so in the awareness that there was going to be another referendum, not what the result was going to be. I repeat the quote from his leader. No means we stay in. We are members of the European Union in September 2014. People, unfortunately, were misled by a number of people, including the leader of the Scottish Tories. I was delighted to know that Stuart Stevenson was the species champion for the Spiny Lobster, but I was also delighted to have his testimony, which this chamber has heard, that in terms of climate change, there was always a lack of support from the UK Government, something that should make us even more nervous going forward. Let me come now, Presiding Officer, to two last contributions. John Scott's a reason contribution. I disagree with it, but there was an alarming indication in it of what a future Tory tactic will be. John Scott was demanding that this Government addresses and funds every possible application under pillar 2. That seems to be a tactic that, having been criticised over many years for not replacing every cut from Westminster, we are now to be criticised if we cannot replace every funding shortfall from Europe. That would be unreasonable, and I hope that Mr Scott, who is not an unreasonable man, will reflect on it. Finally, let me address Gillian Martin's points on research and the wider issues of research. It is vitally important that we look at every issue in the Brexit debate, not simply as a self-contained issue in devolution, but as well as reflecting wider issues. The wider issues of freedom of movement and the wider issues of funding for research really depend on us being part of the EU and engaged with the EU. The problems that we will have in researching the environment will grow enormously unless we are engaged fully with Europe. Mr Lindhurst summed up in a calm manner, I think that I would describe it as that it is important that we do more, that we have more engagement. He did not explain how, and I got a little confused by his contribution. It appeared to me what he was saying, that we should give up the European Union birds directive that protects, for example, if I may mention it again, the corn-crake, but we should sign on to the CETA Convention that protects elephants. I do not think that those are mutually exclusive, but it does seem to be rather confusing to prefer corn-crakes to elephants and to use that as a reason for leaving the EU. Finally, I quote Gillian Martin, Presiding Officer. She said very memorably the most memorable line in this debate to the Tories. If you do not like hearing about grievances, stop causing them. That is the reality of the Brexit situation. The Tories have put us in this situation. Stop making it worse. Come to the table with ideas and debate it sensibly. So far, we have not heard that. Actually, Scotland and the Chamber is the loser. That concludes our debate, and we move on to the next item of business, which is decision time. There are five questions to be put today. I wish to remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Maurice Golden is agreed, the amendment in the name of David Stewart, Mark Ruskell and Liam McArthur fall. The first question is that amendment 2125.1 in the name of Maurice Golden seeks to amend motion 2125 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We shall move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 2125.1 in the name of Maurice Golden is as follows. Yes, 27. No, 87. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 2125.2 in the name of David Stewart be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We shall move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote is as follows. Yes, 87. No, 27. There were no abstentions. The amendment to the name of David Stewart is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 2125.3 in the name of Mark Ruskell is agreed. Do we all agree? We are not agreed. We shall move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 2125.3 is as follows. Yes, 83. No, 31. There were no abstentions. The amendment in the name of Mark Ruskell is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 2125.4 in the name of Liam McArthur be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We shall move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 2125.4 in the name of Liam McArthur is as follows. Yes, 10. No, 104. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The final question is therefore that motion 2125 in the name of Roseanne Cunningham as amended on the environment and climate change European Union referendum be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We shall move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the motion in the name of Roseanne Cunningham as amended is as follows. Yes, 82. No, 31. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. I close this meeting of Parliament.